Chapter published in:
Meaning and Structure in Second Language Acquisition: In honor of Roumyana Slabakova
Edited by Jacee Cho, Michael Iverson, Tiffany Judy, Tania Leal and Elena Shimanskaya
[Studies in Bilingualism 55] 2018
► pp. 203–227

Proficiency and transfer effects in the acquisition of gender agreement by L2 and L3 English learners

| Mondragon University
| University of the Basque Country
The present study examines proficiency and transfer effects in the acquisition of gender agreement in third person singular possessives (his/her) by second (L2) and third language (L3) learners of English. Within current generative second language acquisition research, gender agreement has been found to be a complicated feature to acquire for non-native language learners. A group of Basque/Spanish speakers (n = 117) and a group of Spanish speakers (n = 70) divided into three proficiency levels (elementary, intermediate and advanced) completed two written (a fill in the gap task and a written description task) two oral production tasks (an oral elicitation and a picture description). Our findings show that previous linguistic knowledge and proficiency level in English seem to have an influence on the type of errors attested in the L2 and the L3 groups.
Keywords: agreement, Basque, EFL, English, gender, L2, L3, possession, proficiency, Spanish
Published online: 16 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.55.08ima
References

References

Adger, D.
(2003) Core syntax. A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. and Stavrov, M.
(2007) Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alonso, R.
(Ed.) (2016) Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ambadiang, T.
(1999) La flexión nominal: Género y número. Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 3, 4843–4914.Google Scholar
Antón-Méndez, I.
(2010) Whose? L2 English speakers’ possessive pronoun gender errors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 318–331.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Artiagoitia, X.
(2009) Jabetza-GenitiboarenSintaxia eta ErkatzeAnizkuna (The syntax and the multiple comparison of the genitive-possession). EHU manuscript.Google Scholar
(2011) Izena (the noun). SarekoEuskalGramatika (The online Basque grammar). University of the Basque Country. http://​www​.ehu​.es​/seg​/morf​/5​/6​/0 (13 October, 2015).
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L.
(1995) The CELEX Lexical Database. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Amaro, J. F., & Rothman, J.
(2015) The relationship between L3 transfer and structural similarity across development: Raising across an experiencer in Brazilian Portuguese. In H. Peukert (Ed.), Transfer effects in multilingual language development (pp. 21–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A.
(1998) On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.) Possessors, predicates, and movement in the DP (pp.17–54) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G.
(1991) Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Gender and gender systems. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 3, 1347–1353.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C.
(2010) The study of the role of the background languages in third language acquisition: The state of the art. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48(2–3), 185–219.Google Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I.
(2004) The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & García Lecumberri, M. L.
(Eds.) (2003) Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Slabakova, R.
(2015) Object drop in L3 acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 483–498.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J.
(2016) Coming of age in L3 initial stages transfer models: Deriving developmental prediction and looking towards the future. International Journal of Bilingualism.Crossref.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L.
(1994) Introduction to government and binding theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, J.
(1991) The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 27–62.Google Scholar
Heaton, B.
(1966) Composition through pictures. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hermas, A.
(2014) Restrictive relatives in L3 English: L1 transfer and ultimate attainment convergence. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(3), 361–387.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holderness, J., & Hughes, A.
(1997) 100+ ideas for children: Topic-based activities. Newcastle upon Tyne: Macmillan/Heinemann.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2011) Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd Edition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C.
(1991) Why are HE and SHE a problem for Spanish learners of English? RESLA,7, 129–136.Google Scholar
(1994) A case of frequency-based markedness. Atlantis, 16, 165–177.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. C., & Rigau, G.
(1999) El posesivo y las relaciones posesivas. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 973–1023) Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Pozzan, L., & Antón-Méndez, I.
(2017) English possessive gender agreement in production and comprehension. Similarities and differences between young monolingual English learners and adult Mandarin-English second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 985–1017.Google Scholar
Rothman, J.
(2010) On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48(2–3), 243–271.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2016) The scapel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21, 651–665. Crossref.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., & García Mayo, M. P.
(2015) The L3 syntax-discourse interface. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 130–144.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Testing the currrent models of third language acquisition. In T. Agelovka & A. Hahn (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Syndicate, U. C. L. E.
(2001) Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, J.
(2008) Speeding up acquisition of his and her: Explicit L1/L2 contrasts help. In J. Philip, R. Oliver, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner. Child’s play? (pp. 193–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, J., & Ranta, L.
(2002) Examining the interface between metalinguistic task performance and oral production in a second language. Language Awareness, 11(4), 259–290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, J., Muñoz, C., & Collins, L.
(2007) The his/her challenge: Making progress in a ‘regular’ L2 programme. Language Awareness, 16(4), 278–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H.
(1984) Uniformity and source-language variation across developmental continua”. In W. E. Rutherford (ed.) Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar